You are here

Shutdown's surprise effect on jobs numbers

The government shutdown may have affected October's jobs numbers. But not how you think.

For weeks, the White House had braced for a dour report on hiring, with economists and aides lowering expectations and blaming last month's partial shutdown for the inevitable bad news to come.

Then Friday's numbers materialized: Employers appeared to have ignored the shutdown and hired away, to the tune of 204,000 jobs in October.

The shutdown, it seemed, had had no effect.

Not so fast.

In the height of irony, the 16 days of federal worker furloughs and government disruptions may have helped, not hurt, the improved jobs picture.

Typically, jobs numbers are announced on the first Friday of the month. Because of the shutdown, the Bureau of Labor Statistics delayed the release of the jobs numbers by one week to allow more time to collect payroll and household data. That extra time resulted in an above average response rate for payroll data.

So, not to get hung up on numbers, but the average participation rate by employers in payroll surveys for the nine months before October was 76.4 percent. That meant that in subsequent months, as more data was collected, the hiring numbers were adjusted, often upward.

In October, with an extra week to collect data, the participation rate was 83.5 percent, the highest ever.

A robust hiring number, to some economists, now felt slightly inflated.

"It seems that when the initial response rate is high, the initial payroll number is often, though certainly not always, stronger than the prior trend," Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a research note.

In other words, if the jobs numbers in prior months were based on a lower participation rate, a stronger participation rate would skew the number up.

"Tentatively, we think the effect of this could explain all the overshoot in payrolls," Shepherdson wrote.

As a result, some economists are predicting that when the October numbers are updated, they might be in for a downward revision and that November could yield a lower number as well.

"Businesses may have inadvertently counted employment for an extra week," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "That could juice up the number. That may mean that we actually get surprised next month with a much weaker number."

The shutdown had another effect on the employment data.

Besides conducting a survey of employers, which gives data on actual hiring, the government also surveys households to determine the unemployment rate.

Furloughed federal employees were considered unemployed during the shutdown and thus contributed to the increase in the unemployment rate in October from 7.2 percent to 7.3 percent. Without the furloughs, the unemployment rate would have dropped.

Complicating things, some furloughed employees were counted as still employed. As a result, if they had been properly listed as unemployed, the jobless rate for October could have been higher than 7.3 percent.

But those are temporary anomalies and they won't affect the November unemployment rate.

Even with data showing more hiring in the month, President Barack Obama on Friday stuck with the White House theme that the shutdown "harmed our jobs market."

"The unemployment rate still ticked up and we don't yet know all the data for this final quarter of the year, but it could be down because off what happened in Washington," he said.

The data did have some warnings. Americans' participation in the labor force went down.

"Even factoring out the impact of the shutdown, we have a lot fewer people in the labor force than you'd expect," said Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. "That pushed the unemployment rate down because they are not looking and it takes away from growth."

Then he apologized for being a two-handed economist:

"I consider the (jobs) report evidence of a resilient American economy on the one hand, but some pronounced remaining weaknesses on the other."

Comments

Dr. Information

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 8:25pm

The payroll/unemployment surveys are a complete waste of time. Why? Because the same person who just checked the box saying "Not working full time" on their at home survey will be considered "working" by their employer if they are ONLY working part time.

The survey is completely put together wrong with not enough options. Facts are, the government really doesn't want you to know the actual numbers of unemployed people, aka U6. In June it was 14.3, July 14.0, August 13.7, September 13.6 (bottomed out), October 13.8.

With the struggling economy and poor retail Q3 reports, the end of the year sales are trending to be a pretty bad as we head into the largest spending part of the year and retailers are worried.

Of course the government says "Hey, the GDP rose 2.5% points to 2.8% July-September. What they don't mention in the next line is the truth behind the numbers within the GDP numbers. Consumers and business's cut back on spending in the summer months and just recently RESTOCKED and restocked big time, preparing for the end of the year HOPEFUL splurge by Americans. That single handily caused the GDP to look more bloated than it truly is. Retailers across the nation are hoping their warehouses are empty come December 25th.

"And two PT jobs DO NOT EQUAL one FT job." It did during any Repub administration. What's change? Oh, wait a minute, the guy in the White house.

muec95

Tue, 11/12/2013 - 2:12pm

---= Google is paying 80$ per hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. on sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://goo.gl/f6e95V

mikesee

Sat, 11/09/2013 - 9:36pm

The is very misleading. The majority of people being hired were for hospitality jobs and servers. The second batch was hired as seasonal. The least amount to be hired were for manufacturing positions.

Without the Fed Resv.'s QE & ZERP, this economy would be flat on it's back.

Also, just wait until the ACA employer mandate rules kick in next yr.

The bureaucratic mess that we've been witness to recently will be magnified astronomically and will affect employment numbers.

coasterfan

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:07am

Still beats the heck out of the 800,000 jobs we were losing under Bush each month towards the end of the most disastrous presidency of at least the last 100 years. It takes some mental gymnastics to somehow believe that that things aren't better now than they were in 2008.

It's common knowledge that conservatives' focus on the deficit - and nothing but the deficit - has slowed job growth, as has their fight against all of Obama's jobs programs. Since they are part of the problem, rather than the solution, it's disingenuous, at best, for them to complain about unemployment.

Contango

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:21am

Re: "Obama's jobs programs"

And the funding for more profligate spending comes from where?

More like job growth, capital expenditures and business expansion has been slow due to the tax and regulatory policy uncertainties propagated by the Obama Admin.

grumpy

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 8:11am

"he most disastrous presidency of at least the last 100 years."

I think Johnson for Vietnam and the "Great Society" and Carter for the economy and Middle East peace policies and how those actually turned out compared to what he claimed they would do, make that assurtion rather far fetched. Wait a few decades and see what history says when party bias hatred means less than today. Much like FDR and Kennedy are lossing their "halo's and what they actually accomplished and did, rather than what and how they said they would do can be seen. Reagan and Obama will be put through that same scope. Then what they actually did will be looked at, not what they said... what actually happened. It takes a few generations to come about.
.
.
.
.
.
"It's common knowledge that conservatives' focus on the deficit - and nothing but the deficit - has slowed job growth, as has their fight against all of Obama's jobs programs. Since they are part of the problem, rather than the solution, it's disingenuous, at best, for them to complain about unemployment."

It is common knowledge that EVERYONE has been focused on jobs from the end of Bush's term to today. Trying to change the debate is what many call losing the debate. I have not seen where or when unemployment was not in the spotlight along with the deficit Obamacare, Iraq, Afganastan, TSA, Patriot Act, and more, for nearly 6 years. Are you not able to walk and chew gum? It is called real life, it is never just one thing at a time. That is the difference between academia and the real world.

Contango

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 8:35am

Re: "The most disastrous presidency of at least the last 100 years."

Maybe not. There's still three yrs. left to go with the current WH occupant. :)

And meanwhile, Mr. "I've been burned already with a website" popularity numbers continue to plummet.

"Bush's fault"?

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

- H. L. Mencken

Typical of the politically and fiscally simple minded, who tend to gravitate toward and embrace sound bite rhetoric.

Darwin's choice

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:01am

With Veteran's Day tomorrow...

For coasterfan and deertracker..

showing the incredible incompetence of the Obama Administration...

consider these facts......

March 21, 2010 to October 1, 2013 is

3 years, 6 months, 10 days.

December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is

3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this federal government to build a working website.

Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin - all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!

….and they can't build a health care website.

Obama/Fail

deertracker

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:35am

Go lay down!

Darwin's choice

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:47am

Yep, you've got nothing......good reply from you though.

Typical from an Obama clingon.

The Big Dog's back

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:36pm

durwood, you can call the Healthcare hotline anytime you want. Do you remember how to use a phone?

Darwin's choice

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 2:59pm

Reality kinda slaps you in the Obamalicker, eh?

thinkagain

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:55pm

Great analogy!

mikesee

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 9:23am

The one thing Obama does better than Bush is spending. Higher deficits coupled with out of control spending negates any increased tax revenues. Hard to understand isn't it coaster?

Contango

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 9:57am

Re: "Higher deficits coupled with out of control spending,"

And just wait until the EVENTUALITY of when the almost $4 trillion of Treasuries on the Fed. Resv.'s balance sheet begins to lose value and interest rates spike higher.

Essentially all the Fed. Resv. did was help “paper over” the last financial crisis and made financial institutions that were “too big to fail” into “too BIGGER to fail.”

Where to begin, where to begin? The last several conservative posts contain so much misinformation, it's absolutely breathtaking. My favorite comment was Mikesee's, about Obama's supposed spendthrift ways. Those of us who are actually paying attention know that both the deficit and spending grew under every Republican president since the 1970's. We are also aware that spending rose an average of 8% per year under Bush, and less than 2% under Obama. We are also aware that the deficit continues to shrink under Obama.

The fact that Fox and conservative talk radio continue to report that the exact opposite is happening, despite all evidence to the contrary, tells us all we need to know about their veracity as a "news source".

Contango

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:21pm

Re: "We are also aware that the deficit continues to shrink under Obama."

Due primarily to sequestration "cuts," which Pres. Obama and the Dems want reinstated.

If deficits are declining, why then did the Fed. debt ceiling need to be increased?

Obama's first budget TRIPLED the deficit from Bush's last year in office (which was his highest deficit) , and now that he cut it in half from Obama's own highest deficit, wants to claim accomplishing something by cutting his deficit in half, all the while making his smallest deficit almost double of Bush's highest deficit. That sure is something to be bragging on. His deficits have been 5 of the 6 highest deficits ever. He has 3 more years to get 7 of the highest 8, look at the projected deficits in the link above. Aren't you proud of his policies? Ain't math great?

The Big Dog's back

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 1:04pm

March 11, 2009 was bush's budget you moroon.

grumpy

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 1:51pm

"March 11, 2009 was bush's budget"

Obama signed it, It was his budget, if he didn't want it, he didn't have to sign it. No one held a gun to his head. He owned it when he signed his name to it. If he didn't want it, the supermajority of dimrats in the Senate, with the majority of dimrats in the house, could have made whatever budget they wanted to. Obama signed it, he owns it, moron.

Darwin's choice

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 3:03pm

Don't confuse big dog with actual facts, he'd much rather mirror Obama, and believe what he say's is the truth......

shucks

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 7:58pm

You don't know what's going on , you just jumped in.

Contango

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 1:22pm

"One of the reasons it (fed deficit) is falling is because it shot up so high in the first place.

As the financial crisis devastated the economy, tax revenues fell.

Spending on unemployment insurance and other government recovery programs rose.

In 2008, the deficit was about $458 billion. In 2009, it rocketed up to $1.4 trillion. It stayed above the trillion-dollar mark for 2010 through 2012.

As the economy has gradually recovered, those cyclical expenses have receded.

Tax revenues have risen modestly along with the slowly rising gross domestic product.

The FY 2013 shortfall should end up at around $642 billion, according to the CBO.

"On George W. Bush’s last day in office the US public debt was $10.626 trillion. On Oct. 5, 2012 (you can see the debt to the penny at the Treasury’s Bureau of Public Debt website) the total debt outstanding was about $16.161 trillion."

And this doesn't even take into account the out of control spending the Obama has done in 2013. Where is the evidence to the contrary?

Keep drinking the kool aid coasterman.

mikesee

Mon, 11/11/2013 - 12:47pm

One more for you coasterbluff:

"Part of the problem is that the food-stamp program has grown like wildfire under Obama — to $80 billion last year, with a more than 70 percent increase in recipients just since 2008."

Your boy just likes to spend, spend & spend.

KURTje

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 12:00pm

Prior discourse here validates much of what I stated before. Most older people knew a better economy (those over 50) . They are they "entitled generation." Thanks to a local group I'll celebrate my free dinner tomorrow. Proud to serve.

Darwin's choice

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 3:03pm

Semper Fi

grumpy

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 10:08pm

"Most older people knew a better economy (those over 50)"

What it has actually shown is that Reagan solved the economic problems much faster and better than what Obama has done. The problems each faced were very different. Obama inherited unemployment going up, that is still being worked on, but he had low to no inflation, and historically low interest rates. Reagan inherited double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates. Which was worse, having to fix one thing, or three things? Reagan fixed his in a little over a year after Carter stumbled along with it for over three years. Bush stumbled along with it for less than a year while Obama stumbled for an additional 3 years or so. Which was worse? I have seen no proof of which was better or worse. If you have any please produce it for all to read and compare. Show us which was worse and why. Saying one is worse with nothing but your opinion backing your statement is meaningless.

KURTje

Sun, 11/10/2013 - 11:59pm

Raygun taxed working people's vacation as a luxury (48%). He also raised the age of getting SSI. Along with other stuff. Who knew?? He also ruled like Hitler - by the zodiac.

grumpy

Mon, 11/11/2013 - 8:24am

Thank you for providing proof of your statements about this being a worse economy that what was in the late 70's. Oh wait.... You deflected... again.

Contango

Mon, 11/11/2013 - 9:48am

The world's central planners believe that the "cure" for the disease of economic slow growth and financial crisis is more of the disease.

Contango, these liberals just do not see it nor care to even research. They just spout off the same old rhetoric like typical Obamabots.

KURTje

Mon, 11/11/2013 - 7:57pm

Geez grump not again. You lived it so did my relatives. Always need a link? Every thing needs qualified for you? Embrace facts. btw most know when the father worked & the mother stayed home with the kids? That's the stuff we know is true. That example alone validates what was spoken.

grumpy

Mon, 11/11/2013 - 10:18pm

As I stated you have nothing to back your claim. Your "facts" are your Interpretations of what some people, in one area of the country, have said. It is called opinions. If you can't back up your statements, they are called opinions and are not considered proof or facts. If you can back them with something other than some other peoples opinions then you get into the realm of facts. Sorry your claim that in the late 70's that mothers stayed home is not correct. If you wish to raise your claim to those over 65 having better economic times your claim that in the 60's mothers stayed home, you might be able to have folks agree, but I doubt it. You need something more than a couple of your family agreeing with each other and you. Look up some gov't stats on inflation interest rates, and unemployment and compare them with bot time frames you wish to make claims about, for starters. Otherwise it is just opinion.

Back then they also had one tv at most, one car, no video games, no computer, few vacations, very few had boats, wave runners, air conditioners, dish washers, play stations, gameboys, ATV's, 4x4's, little travel, rare nights out for entertainment. I could go on but then EVERYBODY knows that there was much less consumerism back then, compared to the last 20 -30 years. See how opinions don't always hold true.

KURTje

Tue, 11/12/2013 - 7:58pm

My father worked very hard. My mother stayed at home as a housewife. Dad drove an old rugged Ford pick-up while mom had the late model LTD. Our neighbors were similar other than their vehicle brands. I lived it & heard my relatives speak of their times. Sorry that your folks weren't as successful.

grumpy

Wed, 11/13/2013 - 7:25am

And from your family and your neighbors you extrapolate how the rest of the country (hundreds of millions of people covering this whole country) handled the Carter recession? What a wonderful scientific method of comparison you make. I wonder how or why anyone could possibly question your opinion using such methods of how things were back then. Thank you for being an example.